At 06:14 PM 09/05/96 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>I think Bill also points out the core of the disagreement David and I have been
>having in this context in the rest of the paragraph. I too, sign on with Hume
>(hard to find better company).
No, I don't think that's it because I agree with you, Bill and Hume on this.
At 06:14 PM 09/05/96 -0400, you (Reed Konsler) wrote:
>So once again, I'll trot out my own little homily (Those of you getting tired
>of reading this can skip to the next message now ;) )
>
>"An individual observed to act as if X were true is said to believe X"
The problem I have with this is that something does not have to
be observed in order to exist (despite pseudo-NewAge eastern mysticism
interpretations of quantum dynamics). Don't you believe planets (can)
exist in other galaxies even if no-one has ever observed them?
I admit that we cannot *know* of the existence of something until we
observe it or at least some effect of it. But things can exist independent
our knowledge, that it what I meant my metaphysical vs. epistemological
definitions.
Sure, you can include the concept of observation in the definition of
whatever you want: "an entity observed to have the characteristics of
a cat is said to be a cat". It's not that I disagree with the truth of
your statement about beliefs, I just don't think it is the most concise
definition of "belief".
Does this make sense?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/